Solar is a market for (financial) lemons

95 点作者 Timothee超过 1 年前

14 条评论

crabmusket超过 1 年前

Compare America's federal rooftop solar subsidy scheme (the ITC) to Australia's (STCs):The ITC is a tax credit, which means only households with a large tax bill will be able to benefit. And they'll not benefit up-front, but only after their next tax year.STCs are cash rebates which actually reduce the up-front cost of purchasing solar.The ITC is based on the price of the system, which incentivises higher prices.STCs are based on the kW size of the system, according to a formula intended to estimate the system's energy production over its lifetime. It's a very rough approximation of course.(Not directly related, but the amount of STCs awarded also steps down annually until in 2031 no certificates will be awarded. This policy has remained remarkably stable over the last several governments.)The ITC looks to this foreigner like it was intended to ensure that solar must be purchased on finance. It's not "government subsidies" that are the problem, it's subsidies that may as well have been designed by banks.EDIT: Australia's market is by no means perfect, and we also have our share of financial shenanigans. But it's much better than what I've seen of the US market, and our prices are drastically lower.

评论 #39160639 未加载

评论 #39162157 未加载

评论 #39161359 未加载

评论 #39161283 未加载

vegetablepotpie超过 1 年前

This is a well written article, that makes the point that rooftop solar is good, but a market based approach to roll our it leads to anti-social outcomes like scammers installing substandard systems consumers pay through the nose for.Still, I would like to see some solutions articulated. Should we be promoting solar installation by non-profits? Direct government financed solar installation? Or abandoning rooftop and promoting community solar?

评论 #39159614 未加载

评论 #39159893 未加载

collaborative超过 1 年前

I got my roof mounted solar by saving for 3 years, getting multiple quotes, and going with what I thought was sensible. At current rates it will pay itself off in 9 years. It's not a great investment but also good for the environment. I wouldn't recommend borrowing for it. Just save for it if you can

评论 #39160190 未加载

评论 #39160848 未加载

评论 #39159914 未加载

评论 #39159909 未加载

thelastgallon超过 1 年前

If the Govts stop subsidizing fossil fuels directly and indirectly (ethanol subsidies, defense budgets to protect fossil fuel assets and shipping) then we'll have properly functioning energy markets. It will function perfectly if we price in the externalities: air pollution, climate change, energy security amnd terrorism.Why Are Governments Still Subsidizing Fossil Fuels? Last year, fuels that drive climate change and pollute the air were underpriced to the tune of $7 trillion. It’s hard to think of a more misguided policy: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climate-change-why-are-governments-still-subsidizing-fossil-fuels" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climat...</a>Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...</a>more than 80 countries have policies that support biofuel demand: <a href="https://www.iea.org/energy-system/low-emission-fuels/biofuels" rel="nofollow">https://www.iea.org/energy-system/low-emission-fuels/biofuel...</a>

oatmeal1超过 1 年前

> There's a (superficial) good case for turning markets loose on the problem of financing the rollout of an entirely new kind of energy provision across a large and heterogeneous nation.> So the government moved in to tinker with the markets> But we won't get there with markets. All markets will do is create incentives to cheat.Typical example of someone blaming markets for outcomes caused by the government intervention in those markets, and the government's poor judicial system.> If governments are willing to spend billions incentivizing rooftop solar, they can simply spend billions installing rooftop solarThe same thoughtful government responsible for creating a substantial portion of our global warming through car-dependent infrastructure can surely be trusted with the reins to mitigate it.

评论 #39161476 未加载

评论 #39161185 未加载

评论 #39161210 未加载

scythe超过 1 年前

Part of the problem is that rooftop solar doesn't really make sense in the United States. It does make sense in Japan, possibly England, some parts of Europe, and maybe Miami and New Orleans. But in most of the country, solar farms are just a better value proposition.You've probably seen the numbers that if we just used the land currently growing corn for ethanol fuel, we could power the whole country. And we have a lot more empty land than that. The smart money also saw those figures, realized that there is no long-term market, and took their ball and went home.Installing stuff in cities — even suburbs — is expensive. Installation costs now dominate solar costs. Modus ponens, rooftop solar loses. The exceptions I mentioned are swampy places where open land is very expensive to build on.

jokethrowaway超过 1 年前

I love how the author blames the market and then goes on to explain the government created subsidies in the first place.If you let the market do his thing the growth would have matched exactly what consumers wanted.We also had some moderate subsidies in my EU country but we didn't get fast salesmen and crappy products. The quality was reasonable. I suspect this happened because the subsidies were not large enough to warrant the business model.We, the middle class taxpayers, just gave a bunch of free money to the people who own houses and who were smart enough to buy solar panels - which happened to be quite rich already.

评论 #39160048 未加载

kwhitefoot超过 1 年前

Surely the fault is in the scammers not the market.

评论 #39160815 未加载

a1371超过 1 年前

Highly opinionated article void of facts. Reaching the conclusion that the government should install solar, not seeing the fallacy in that argument. Governments are also optimization machines that connects the opinion of voters and interest groups, to action. What they spend on is not based on objective good, it's based on what the public opinion is that year. Most people would rather money going into low income housing and fighting homelessness. So the system will end up underfunded and that's assuming if the gov is efficient. I say that as a socialist, if the market is bad, regulate it.

评论 #39160133 未加载

评论 #39161350 未加载

incomingpain超过 1 年前

My solar investments sure havent done well. It doesn't seem to make sense neither. They ought to basically be amortized and pure profit.But they all seem to do so poorly.renewables are not so renewable as advertised.

ChumpGPT超过 1 年前

I dreaming but man would I like a solar system that I could roll out like a 20 x 60 carpet in my backyard and connect it to a system to provide power or charge a battery pack. Otherwise fixed installation is to costly for me.

jacknews超过 1 年前

"only way we can approach them is though markets, those monkey's paw curses that always find a way to snatch profitable defeat from the jaws of useful victory."lol. markets certainly have their place, but they often need to be tightly controlled in order to devliver societal benefits, not just 'profits'.

trimethylpurine超过 1 年前

Great article, but any opinion about the solar industry that diverges from the marketing is a recipe for downvotes and harassment. Best to keep quiet and pretend solar, batteries, and other "clean" sources of energy are actually clean, while capitalists and marketers sweep the ugly truth under the rug by branding them with one political agenda or another. Most people aren't scientists and they have louder mouths and shorter tempers than do scientists.